Reply To: Confused buyers don’t buy digital twins

I think it would be best to stop calling a 3D model as “digital twin”. By using terms like “static”, people might simply want to overuse “digital twin” which is very trendy now. 

It would be better to avoid such loose definition because at the end it is just confusing. It was the same for BIM model, where a lot of 3D models were called “BIM”. Or even “AI”.

A 3D model is never a digital twin, it is a representation. In most cases, 3D models are not even a good representation as they will have lot of errors.

We use a 3D model for digital twin as a “skeleton”, but no one will say that a skeleton is a “human” for example. It is just one part. An important one, but still a part (ie: need other things).

Also people are not calling Michelangelo’s David as a “physical twin” of a man, but a representation. A picture of a painting is never a “copy” and nowhere near a “twin”.

I have seen some businesses trying to sell a collection of still images as a “digital twin” and I really fell we are losing focus.

It is very important because if we want to develop standards or to draw useful information, we need proper classification/definition. Let’s call a “cat” a cat!
Otherwise it will be very difficult to build robust technologies. Point clouds and CAD models existed before, they don’t need to change name. No structure is “statistic”, even if they are slow to change, therefore a “digital twin” should/must be “dynamic”.